Bodies Recovered in School Sink aka Wayne's World, Hudson, FL

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Already explained... to summarize...
Neither was full cave certified, a violation of the 'do not exceed your training' rule, and therefore, based on the published access policy of the NSS-CDS, trespassing.... If they were given permission by the property manager, then we need to call into question of validation protocol in place. There was also a reference to a visual-jump, a violation of the 'continuous guideline' rule...

There's a reason we call these rules and not suggestions.....

If you have cave diving questions, please ask them. Where this can spiral into futility is when some people, while well meaning, should not be responding just to put their 2 cents in on the subject. Lets just keep the discussion to released facts and generally accepted practices; not conjecture and speculation.

The only lesson to learn from this incident is to following the existing well established cave diving practices which have been largely unchanged since 1984.

1. Continuous guideline to the surface
2. Air Rule, thirds
3. Pay attention to depth, and understand the implications
4. Do not exceed training
5. 3 lights

-Tim
Sorry, I'm not content with "The exceeded their training". That's NOT a cause of death. Also, to be clear, the visual jump has NOT been confirmed, and was simply me stating that when divers are separated, navigation error seems to be the common reason. Please avoid assuming that this is the case, as I was just asking for more information and stating a trend related to fatalities in general and not this event.

Also I believe the order of the accident analysis statistics are as follows. I think the order is important, as it gives perspective.

  1. Training
  2. Guideline
  3. Air
  4. Depth
  5. Lights
 
Sorry, I'm not content with "The exceeded their training". That's NOT a cause of death. Also, to be clear, the visual jump has NOT been confirmed, and was simply me stating that when divers are separated, navigation error seems to be the common reason. Please avoid assuming that this is the case, as I was just asking for more information and stating a trend related to fatalities in general and not this event.

Also I believe the order of the accident analysis statistics are as follows. I think the order is important, as it gives perspective.

  1. Training
  2. Guideline
  3. Air
  4. Depth
  5. Lights

How about attitude...? Some deleted posts over on TDS have already shed light on that topic.

From the original accident analysis in 1977 by Sheck, only three rules existed. Wes added two more. That is the order I have them listed. To apply 'ranking' as you have done, implies one is more important that the other; which should not be implied.

http://www.safecavediving.com/accident_analysis_2008.ppt

To play your game, the cause is simple... drowning....
 
As usual, on this forum and others as well, the focus goes away from the victims. Why do these incidents always have to end up as a conflict of personalities? I don't believe anyone who has posted here has bad intentions. I get sick of all the bickering that goes on - please stick to the rules.

My condolences to their family and friends.
 
Why does almost every thread started in this forum go through this very same process where people say that nobody should be discussing it until all information is released? The fact is, most information never gets into the hands of the general population. I believe that we once again come back to emotions however I cannot say that for sure. The bottom line is, this forum is here so that people who do not know for sure what happened with a particular incident, can speculate as to what happened to try to come up with scenarios that may just some day help someone out. All of this is to be done with flaming the living or the deceased. It is also to be done with compassion for those who come here with what they believe to be helpful information. If information is only assumed to be correct, then it really should be presented as speculation only so that there is less confusion. However, this forum is about the breakdown and speculation of incidents so that people can learn from other's misfortune.

It seems likely that a significant number of people reading and posting in Accidents and Incidents probably aren't regulars, and wouldn't be aware of how to peacefully co-exist here. Uncle Pug's sticky is a start, but it mainly talks about what to post and not post, and not the "how". Since this forum tends to be about fairly emotional topics, how about a few recommendations for people visiting this forum for the first time.

- State your sources: Names don't have to be given, but explain how you got the information, including possible qualification and skill levels of the intermediaries. To use the current thread as an example, it appears one of the primary posters got information third or fourth hand, and some of the intermediaries were not knowledgeable enough in cave diving to pass on information ungarbled.

- Hypothesizing: Like accident investigations in other areas (such as airplanes) a lot of dive accidents may be the results of chains of problems or errors, and the details may only ever be known to the unfortunate victim. The value to the living of analyzing accidents is learning from both what did go wrong as well as what could have. Hypothesizing is not only ok in this forum, but the rule, since that's what accident analysis often is. Just clearly distinguish between known facts of an incident, hypothesized facts, definite conclusions, and alternate scenarios (things that may not have happen, but there are still important lessons to be learned).

- Not discussing things until there's an official accident report: In my mind, saying this in itself is almost a violation of the implicit forum rule. The purpose of this forum is to exchange information about accidents, and discuss how to avoid future casualties. It just has to be done respectfully, especially when the discussion starts talking about other theoretical problems which may not have had anything to do with what happened in the original incident. Have consideration of the victims, and clearly state when you're theorizing. (See also previous.)

Also, most dive accidents are never well analyzed in official circles, due to lack of expertise or resources, especially in non-industrialized countries without strong legal protections.

- If you're upset about the incident, consider whether you really want to post here. Yes, first hand information (or as near as is available) is valuable to all who want to learn all possible lessons from an accident. On the other hand, the relatively dispassionate third parties picking for details are frequently hard for those more directly involved in an accident to handle. Accident analysis looks for errors and discrepancies in accounts, and it's hard for most people to be on the receiving end in what is already an emotional situation.

Anyone think of any other recommendations? Would it be helpful to spawn this off into a separate thread or collectively generate a follow-up posting for Uncle Pugs sticky?

Also, since these issues seem to come up in a large fraction of threads, what's the best way for us to point newcomers to the sticky, since we're probably going to have to do it almost every time. Maybe someone posting a gentle pointer to the 'special forum rules'? I'm guessing the majority of newcomers are finding specific incident threads, and aren't even seeing rules posted in forum stickies.
 
Last edited:
How about attitude...? Some deleted posts over on TDS have already shed light on that topic.

From the original accident analysis in 1977 by Sheck, only three rules existed. Wes added two more. That is the order I have them listed. To apply 'ranking' as you have done, implies one is more important that the other; which should not be implied.

http://www.safecavediving.com/accident_analysis_2008.ppt

To play your game, the cause is simple... drowning....
I saw the deleted posts, and I'm somewhat frustrated they were deleted. Sometimes the harsh truth is what's needed.

I don't believe I'm saying one's more important than the other, it's my understanding that the order I gave is from most to least common. The main point of my post here is that I hope we never become content enough with saying training was the cause.

Thanks for letting me know what was behind your order. To be frank, your list is more than likely better than mine (the more modern version), especially if you drop those last two, I'm not sure I can even find information on a modern cave death due to lights.

What I would like to know, is that if lack of training is the reason behind this, what aspect of training could have prevented this?
 
Master Instructor and OWSI. Isolation valve turned off on one diver, other wrapped in line doing line sweeps. One ran out of air went to deco bottle it ran out then to O2 bottle below 50ft. One ventured out on his own got lost. Both used doubles.

Source - recovery diver.
 
Bleeb, I commend you on this post. I think you have put to words several things that many people, myself included, just assumed were known and understood. What you see below (in your post that is) are fairly simple rules that if we follow them, we will likely all end up a little safer and a little less frustrated. Maybe the SB staff can take some of this post and apply parts of it to either the TOS or a sticky in this forum.

:clapping: Thanks

It seems likely that a significant number of people reading and posting in Accidents and Incidents probably aren't regulars, and wouldn't be aware of how to peacefully co-exist here. Uncle Pug's sticky is a start, but it mainly talks about what to post and not post, and not the "how". Since this forum tends to be about fairly emotional topics, how about a few recommendations for people visiting this forum for the first time.

- State your sources: Names don't have to be giving, but explain how you got the information, including possible qualification and skill levels of the intermediaries. To use the current thread as an example, it appears one of the primary posters got information third of fourth hand, and some of the intermediaries were not knowledgeable enough in cave diving to pass on information ungarbled.

- Hypothesizing: Like accident investigations in other areas (such as airplanes) a lot of dive accidents may be the results of chains of problems or errors, and the details may only ever be known to the unfortunate victim. The value to the living of analyzing accidents learning from both what did go wrong as well as what could have. Hypothesizing is not only ok in this forum, but the rule, since that's what accident analysis often is. Just clearly distinguish between known facts of an incident, hypothesized facts, definite conclusions, and alternate scenarios (things that may not have happen, but there are still important lessons to be learned).

- Not discussing things until there's an official accident report: In my mind, saying this in itself is almost a violation of the implicit forum rule. The purpose of this forum is to exchange information about accidents, and discuss how to avoid future casualties. It just has to be done respectfully, especially when the discussion starts talking about other theoretical problems which may not have had anything to do with what happened in the original incident. Have consideration of the victims, and clearly state when you're theorizing. (See also previous.)

Also, most dive accidents are never well analyzed in official circles, due to lack of expertise or resources, especially in non-industrialized countries without strong legal protections.

- If you're upset about the incident, consider whether you really want to post here. Yes, first hand information (or as near as is available) is valuable to all who want to learn all possible lessons from an accident. On the other hand, the relatively dispassionate third parties picking for details are frequently hard for those more directly involved in an accident to handle. Accident analysis looks for errors and discrepancies in accounts, and it's hard for most people to take these unemotionally in what is already an emotional situation.

Anyone think of any other recommendations? Would it be helpful do spawn this off into a separate thread or collectively generate a follow-up posting for Uncle Pugs stick?

Also, since these issues seem to come up in a large fraction of threads, what's the best way for us to point newcomers to the sticky, since we're probably going to have to do it almost every time. Maybe someone posting a gentle pointer to the 'special forum rules'? I'm guessing the majority of newcomers are finding specific incident threads, and aren't even seeing rules posted in forum stickies.
 
What I would like to know, is that if lack of training is the reason behind this, what aspect of training could have prevented this?

It is my understanding that one of the divers did not have ANY cave training. (2nd hand source, so I may be incorrect.) If, however, that is the case then ALL aspects of cave training could have prevented this.
 
... Maybe the SB staff can take some of this post and apply parts of it to either the TOS or a sticky in this forum...
Looking at it....
---
ok... I've updated the special rules to capture the "meat" of bleeb's excellent post.
Rick
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom